MR. CARNEY: Let me say this about that question, which is that Mr. Snowden’s claim that he is focused on supporting transparency, freedom of the press, and protection of individual rights and democracy is belied by the protectors he has potentially chosen -- China, Russia, Ecuador, as we’ve seen.
His failure to criticize these regimes suggest that his true motive throughout has been to injure the national security of the United States -- not to advance Internet freedom and free speech.
I think that with regards to the first part of your question, I’ve made the point that the unauthorized disclosure of classified information -- the kind of information that has already been disclosed -- has an enormous negative impact and there are ongoing damage assessments being done. But, certainly, it would be our assumption that any information -- any further classified information that he has that has not yet been divulged publicly would be compromised, or has been compromised.
What idiotic logic. Because he is hiding in countries with imperfect track records on the issues he is bringing up about the U.S., and has not openly criticized the regimes of those countries, that somehow, by their logic, renders moot any claims he has about opposing similar things in the U.S.
It's not idiotic at all. There are many countries which don't have this sort of issue, eg Iceland (where many were expecting him to go a week ago). Julian Assange seemed quite happy with Sweden until he found himself at odds with the laws on sexual conduct there (and recall that it is to Sweden, rather than the US, that Britain wants to extradite him).
Russia doesn't have an 'imperfect track record' in this area. It has a pretty poor one, and I'm guessing you're not going to see a wave of libertarian idealists heading there any time soon for just this reason. It's not unreasonable to question Snowden's motives based on the company he keeps.
It's tremendously idiotic. It makes sense for him to go to countries likely to push back on the U.S. extradition request. He went to Hong Kong for reasons which made sense, then left while they temporarily resisted extraditing. He went to Russia with plans to meet with ambassadors from at least one other country, and that plan was arranged by Wikileaks. Now it's not publicly known where he is, and it may not be in Russia anymore.
I'm not supporting these countries at all as having great governments, but to say that he is a supporter of them because he isn't openly criticizing them while they're helping him is just stupid.
You've missed the point that there are other countries likely to push back on the US extradition request that don't have bad human rights records or an antagonistic stance towards the US. Like Iceland and Sweden, as I explained above.
I didn't miss that point, it was just irrelevant to my point, which was that it's absurd to say his point is moot simply because he doesn't criticize the countries he's in as being as bad as he alleges the U.S. is.
Q Last thing on this. The administration was obviously embarrassed when you had a 29-year-old person as contractor just leak all these documents in the first place. Is the administration embarrassed now that you can’t track him down, that he’s -- this cat-and-mouse game that’s going on for all the world to see?
...
Q Is the President enraged? You know -- like really angry? -- like throwing around stuff? Like the throwing of that bronze horsie statue -- in the oval office?
I don't think they were embarrassed by the fact that he's a 29 year old blah blah, but that the citizens of the US, the government's constituents, found out the government was doing something the citizens weren't comfortable with.
His failure to criticize these regimes suggest that his true motive throughout has been to injure the national security of the United States -- not to advance Internet freedom and free speech.
I think that with regards to the first part of your question, I’ve made the point that the unauthorized disclosure of classified information -- the kind of information that has already been disclosed -- has an enormous negative impact and there are ongoing damage assessments being done. But, certainly, it would be our assumption that any information -- any further classified information that he has that has not yet been divulged publicly would be compromised, or has been compromised.